Got a pilot deviation today

sferguson524 said:
Well, the happy ending that was told to me by FAA is a lot different now.. CFII got a certified letter to take a 44709 ride and teach the instrument PTS.
Click to expand...

As I wrote earlier, no matter what or how you screwed up, that CFII was responsible for the procedure being flown correctly, unless he coordinated with ATC prior, which is not the case here. He allowed it to go too far, and he's about to learn a serious lesson. He'd best be humble and fly the ride correctly or he could be "busted" down to PPC.

So, not surprised he's getting a ride, especially if he was confrontional with the FAA Inspector.
 
Last edited:
azure said:
Reference? :D
Click to expand...
I'm curious about that too. Under FAR 91.153 and 91.169, flight plans require "The full name and address of the pilot in command or, in the case of a formation flight, the formation commander."

This might be in the "no harm no foul if you don't get caught" category, but I'm going to take a WAG that, in the case of an inquiry into a pilot deviation, "Haha, I put my dog's name as PIC in the filed flight plan," won't earn you any points in the way the FAA handles it. I can see where the FAA might even consider the little joke as evidence of an intentional violation.

Personally, my CFII and I follow the same procedure as you. The form asks for the PIC and the PIC is the person whose name goes in there.
 
sferguson524 said:
I still feel like a shet because i was the loose nut behind the yoke that didn't fly the clearance, though, a good bit of mess goes on him for not instructing.
Click to expand...
I give you credit...it sounds like he was PIC and is taking the heat, but you're standing up and admitting your part as well. In this day and age, many in your shoes put 100% of the blame on someone else.
 
sferguson524 said:
I still feel like a shet because i was the loose nut behind the yoke that didn't fly the clearance, though, a good bit of mess goes on him for not instructing.
Click to expand...
In addition, he was not effectively supervising what you were doing. That’s part of his responsibility.
 
tawood said:
I give you credit...it sounds like he was PIC and is taking the heat, but you're standing up and admitting your part as well. In this day and age, many in your shoes put 100% of the blame on someone else.
Click to expand...
I was raised to stand up, tell the truth, and take my lumps as they come. Integrity has gotten me far in my almost 42 years on this planet.
 
azure said:
Reference? :D

Seriously, this is not about the clearance, it's about the info on the flight plan and whether the FAA takes it seriously in determining who was PIC. I really don't know the answer to that, and if you do, I'd appreciate knowing the source. I do know that my CFII was very explicit about it: I was to use his name, not mine, and doing otherwise could get him or me in a heap of trouble.

And yes, I agree, the CFI was PIC and the FAA apparently came to the reasonable conclusion in this case.
Click to expand...

The thing about the dog was meant to be sarcastic. My understanding was that the pilots name and address was for search and rescue purposes and for contacting the next of kin in case of an accident. After all, do they really need your home address to make sure it is you? Doesn't the FAA already know not only where you live, but also your entire medical history? What would be the point of asking for it every single time you file a flight plan? However, I never saw this interpretation written anywhere. So, if in doubt, it is probably safe to put the PIC's name in the flight plan. However, I seriously doubt anyone is going to get busted just for putting a different person's name in the flight plan, especially if that person is also in the cockpit flying the airplane.
 
sarangan said:
The thing about the dog was meant to be sarcastic. My understanding was that the pilots name and address was for search and rescue purposes and for contacting the next of kin in case of an accident. After all, do they really need your home address to make sure it is you? Doesn't the FAA already know not only where you live, but also your entire medical history? What would be the point of asking for it every single time you file a flight plan? However, I never saw this interpretation written anywhere. So, if in doubt, it is probably safe to put the PIC's name in the flight plan. However, I seriously doubt anyone is going to get busted just for putting a different person's name in the flight plan, especially if that person is also in the cockpit flying the airplane.
Click to expand...
It's also about taking responsibility. And simple compliance with a simple rule. No one is going to get busted for that alone. Of course, no one is likely to get busted for flying IFR without a pilot certificate and instrument rating either - unless something else happens.

Your general analysis is ok, but its also a reason to not carry our pilot and medical certificates.
 
Last edited:
When I was training for the instrument rating, my CFII didn't say anything about whose name should go on the flight plan. It wasn't until I saw it mentioned on a Internet message board, many years later, that I became aware that the reg says pilot "in command."

The regulations are so detailed that I find myself wondering if there are any flights that don't violate at least one.
 
Palmpilot said:
When I was training for the instrument rating, my CFII didn't say anything about whose name should go on the flight plan. It wasn't until I saw it mentioned on a Internet message board, many years later, that I became aware that the reg says pilot "in command."

The regulations are so detailed that I find myself wondering if there are any flights that don't violate at least one.
Click to expand...

We should be burned at the stake. All my training flights were filed under my name as well.
 
BigBadLou said:
Same here, I shall flog myself.
And if I do deserve the death penalty, I'd prefer stoning to death. It is painless and fun! :D
Click to expand...

That word, I'm not sure it means what you think it means...
 
Honestly, this doesn't seem too unreasonable to me. Obviously the OP isn't going to get smacked by the FAA; he was a student. Hell, it's practically a student's job to screw up. Nobody cares what name is on the flight plan. Yeah, it's supposed to be the PIC, but every instructor I've flown with has had me file the flight plans. This might be an "add-on" violation if the FAA really wanted to hang someone, but thankfully the FAR Czars on this board aren't particularly representative of a typical ASI.

A 709 for the CFI is maybe harsh, but I can see the logic. If a non-CFI made this mistake, my bet would be on some "airman counseling" from the FAA and maybe a warning letter (and even then, probably only if someone whizzed in the examiner's Wheaties that morning or the pilot was a dick on the phone). But what makes this a bit touchier is that it seems like the CFI knew that things were headed south and chose not to intervene. So it's not really just an "oopsie; I intercepted the wrong radial" but rather a conscious decision to allow things to get rather too far. Certainly it seems unfair to destroy the guy over it, but checking to be sure he's thinking about instruction the right way actually does seem to make some sense. "I wanted him to learn, so I let him ground loop the Decathlon" isn't something the FAA ever wants to hear. Especially if the CFI were defensive on the call, I can totally see how an ASI might think this guy just wasn't very thoughtful about how he taught or thought about safety.
 
Well it's the first time I've read it and now I want to know what the ultimate scumbag thing the CFI could do is that Azure didn't even want to mention. I'm thinking, denying that he was even on the flight? I wouldn't think he could ever get away with that. Anyways, glad it worked out okay for OP. I don't see why you should feel bad but I understand it.
 
Rushie said:
Well it's the first time I've read it and now I want to know what the ultimate scumbag thing the CFI could do is that Azure didn't even want to mention. I'm thinking, denying that he was even on the flight? I wouldn't think he could ever get away with that. Anyways, glad it worked out okay for OP. I don't see why you should feel bad but I understand it.
Click to expand...

Ultimate scumbag thing? @azure ‘s commentary was way back when we didn’t know what the CFI did for sure but knew they’d had the student file under the student’s name.

Yes, I suppose if a student played along a CFI could have gotten away with it, but no student is likely to play along and get violated for flying IFR out of currency.

Later down the thread the full story of the conversations with the FAA inspector came out and the instructor had to do a 44709 ride with the Feds. Sounded like the CFI got read the riot act, which wasn’t too surprising but a little bit. Feds don’t like it when CFIs allow losses of separation in IMC.

The original anonymous OP was @sferguson524 and he detailed what was going on in the aftermath, after nobody was concerned about anonymity anymore. He felt bad that he mis-flew the SID, but ultimately the CFI gets handed their butt for allowing it. Just how it goes. As the certificates go up the tolerance for mistakes gets smaller.

A lesson learned for all. Hopefully the CFI passed his Fed ride and life’s gone back to normal for everyone.
 
denverpilot said:
Ultimate scumbag thing? @azure ‘s commentary was way back when we didn’t know what the CFI did for sure but knew they’d had the student file under the student’s name.

Yes, I suppose if a student played along a CFI could have gotten away with it, but no student is likely to play along and get violated for flying IFR out of currency.
Click to expand...
Obviously this is all hypothetical considering the way things eventually played out, but it all depends on whether the CFI's voice was ever heard on the tapes, and if it came to that, whether anyone saw the CFI getting on the plane. If not, then it is the student's word against CFI's. I could see it going either way.

What I couldn't see is anyone but an ultimate scumbag CFI even trying to avoid facing the music with a ploy like that. And I'd hope anyone that scummy would have gotten weeded out of the program long before he got his II. I'd have to go back and read the whole thread again and I'm too lazy to do that, but what I remember is that with the facts we were given early on, it sounded to me like this CFI might be a real bad apple. As you say, it all turned out for the best and hopefully, the CFI passed his 44709 ride and learned something from the experience.
 
denverpilot said:
Ultimate scumbag thing? @azure ‘s commentary was way back when we didn’t know what the CFI did for sure but knew they’d had the student file under the student’s name.

Yes, I suppose if a student played along a CFI could have gotten away with it, but no student is likely to play along and get violated for flying IFR out of currency.

Later down the thread the full story of the conversations with the FAA inspector came out and the instructor had to do a 44709 ride with the Feds. Sounded like the CFI got read the riot act, which wasn’t too surprising but a little bit. Feds don’t like it when CFIs allow losses of separation in IMC.

The original anonymous OP was @sferguson524 and he detailed what was going on in the aftermath, after nobody was concerned about anonymity anymore. He felt bad that he mis-flew the SID, but ultimately the CFI gets handed their butt for allowing it. Just how it goes. As the certificates go up the tolerance for mistakes gets smaller.

A lesson learned for all. Hopefully the CFI passed his Fed ride and life’s gone back to normal for everyone.
Click to expand...

Yes, I read the whole thread and I get all that, but I was still curious what had been in azure's head with that one post. It was like reading a novel and then at the end there was a loose thread not tied up.

But this is a nice summary for those who don't want to read the whole thread. :)
 
azure said:
Obviously this is all hypothetical considering the way things eventually played out, but it all depends on whether the CFI's voice was ever heard on the tapes, and if it came to that, whether anyone saw the CFI getting on the plane. If not, then it is the student's word against CFI's. I could see it going either way.

What I couldn't see is anyone but an ultimate scumbag CFI even trying to avoid facing the music with a ploy like that. And I'd hope anyone that scummy would have gotten weeded out of the program long before he got his II. I'd have to go back and read the whole thread again and I'm too lazy to do that, but what I remember is that with the facts we were given early on, it sounded to me like this CFI might be a real bad apple. As you say, it all turned out for the best and hopefully, the CFI passed his 44709 ride and learned something from the experience.
Click to expand...

In addition to the bolded part the CFII would have had to not sign the logbook or accept payment, unless it was cash without a receipt I suppose. Pretty far fetched. But in a case like OP's until you know the outcome, it could be a worst case scenario that might be in the back of one's mind, because a situation like that can cause feelings of paranoia and impending doom I would imagine. Because the student's name was on the flight plan, it's one possible scenario however unlikely, that might have haunted me had I been OP. But you are right, the CFI would have had to have been the worst of scum to try that. But then life has taught me some people are that bad.

I was just curious if you were thinking the same thing I was thinking. I was reading the thread in order from the first post, and when I got to your post I didn't know anything more than you all did at that point, and the fact of OP's name being on the plan was bugging me. For all I knew there was no documented evidence that OP was not alone in the plane. It was a real nail biter, reading this thread.:eek::D
 
It's pretty funny to read brand New comments on a necro thread that had 180 posts, most of which were not read by the newest poster for discussion context.
 
Rushie said:
In addition to the bolded part the CFII would have had to not sign the logbook or accept payment, unless it was cash without a receipt I suppose. Pretty far fetched. But in a case like OP's until you know the outcome, it could be a worst case scenario that might be in the back of one's mind, because a situation like that can cause feelings of paranoia and impending doom I would imagine. Because the student's name was on the flight plan, it's one possible scenario however unlikely, that might have haunted me had I been OP. But you are right, the CFI would have had to have been the worst of scum to try that. But then life has taught me some people are that bad.
Click to expand...
Oh, a lot of CFIs work on a cash only basis. The local CFI based at my airport is like that. He has really annoyed me and another pilot I know by repeating CASH several times when explaining his terms. No doubt it's to avoid paying tax on the income. ;)

(He is also so laid back as an instructor that he basically doesn't teach or give any criticism, so I have taken to just using a safety pilot - in fact I just shot 3 approaches today - until I can find a CFII who is worth what he charges to do a real IPC.)

As to not signing the logbook, if the CFII was really thinking of evading the consequences of an ATC deviation, that's exactly what he would do, something like "I'm too tired to fill in your logbook right now, bring it in next time and I'll take care of it." And then, of course, he doesn't, or he puts off the next lesson until after the FSDO has talked to both of them.

But that's a good point, for the CFII to get away with that he would have to do more than just deny being in the plane. Yet another "tell" that means your CFII is a real weasel... :ihih:

Totally irrelevant to the present case, of course, as it turned out... thankfully.
 
azure said:
Oh, a lot of CFIs work on a cash only basis. The local CFI based at my airport is like that. He has really annoyed me and another pilot I know by repeating CASH several times when explaining his terms. No doubt it's to avoid paying tax on the income. ;)

(He is also so laid back as an instructor that he basically doesn't teach or give any criticism, so I have taken to just using a safety pilot - in fact I just shot 3 approaches today - until I can find a CFII who is worth what he charges to do a real IPC.)

As to not signing the logbook, if the CFII was really thinking of evading the consequences of an ATC deviation, that's exactly what he would do, something like "I'm too tired to fill in your logbook right now, bring it in next time and I'll take care of it." And then, of course, he doesn't, or he puts off the next lesson until after the FSDO has talked to both of them.

But that's a good point, for the CFII to get away with that he would have to do more than just deny being in the plane. Yet another "tell" that means your CFII is a real weasel... :ihih:

Totally irrelevant to the present case, of course, as it turned out... thankfully.
Click to expand...

OMG I had an instructor like that. Literally sat back and relaxed while I basically taught myself to do stuff. I mean just kick off your shoes and take a nap why doncha.
 
Rushie said:
OMG I had an instructor like that. Literally sat back and relaxed while I basically taught myself to do stuff. I mean just kick off your shoes and take a nap why doncha.
Click to expand...
This guy is actually so nice about it though, I prefer him awake so he can tell his stories. He's had an interesting life and flew for Cape Air for a number of years, had a few close calls with weather and such. He just doesn't give a damn about teaching, so it seems. He is probably better with primary students - at least I hope so, or one of them is going to kill him!
 
I was able to get my receipt back from ASRS a couple of days ago. Am I correct in assuming since it's almost been a month that FSDO isn't gonna get involved in this gongshow
 
Bisola said:
I was able to get my receipt back from ASRS a couple of days ago. Am I correct in assuming since it's almost been a month that FSDO isn't gonna get involved in this gongshow
Click to expand...
I believe they have 6 months to initiate a letter of investigation, but I would would bet dollars to donuts you are in the clear.
 
Bisola said:
I was able to get my receipt back from ASRS a couple of days ago. Am I correct in assuming since it's almost been a month that FSDO isn't gonna get involved in this gongshow
Click to expand...
I think it took around or a little over a month before the FSDO contacted me.
 
Old Thread: Hello . There have been no replies in this thread for 365 days.
Content in this thread may no longer be relevant.
Perhaps it would be better to start a new thread instead.
Back
Top